Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

As I was saying before the hard marker earlier, the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 does some very sensible things which we in the opposition are supportive of. As I said before the break, this bill proposes amendments to enhance the legislative framework of the national intelligence community by implementing recommendations of the Richardson review. It also proposes to amend the Intelligence Services Act to clarify the level of detail required to describe activities issued under a ministerial direction. As I said, we do support sensible changes to support the work of our national intelligence agencies, which is why we agreed to the relevant recommendations in the Richardson review back when the outcomes of that review were provided, in December 2020, when the coalition were still in government.

But unfortunately we have this situation where the government is deciding to play games with this legislation by adding the additional amendment that I foreshadowed in some of my commentary earlier—I know my colleagues have spoken about it as well—to change the composition of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. That is a change that they have made without consulting anybody, and it seems today that they are trying to rush this change through the Senate, hoping that nobody will notice. But of course we have noticed. We recognise the impact that this change—introducing membership of the PJCIS to be held by parliamentarians who do not come from the parties of government—will have on the bipartisan nature of that committee. The sole point of contention between the government and the opposition, like I say, is the proposal in the bill to increase the size of the PJCIS from 11 members to 13 members and to change the required composition from each chamber of the parliament.

As colleagues have already alluded to in this debate today, the coalition was not consulted on these changes. My colleague Senator James Paterson submitted a question on notice to the Attorney-General's Department to clarify whether shadow ministers, crossbenchers and Commonwealth officials had been consulted on this change. In response, the Attorney-General's Department disclosed that it did not consult with or advise non-government parliamentarians on the proposed changes to the membership and composition of the committee, the PJCIS, and that this measure was a recommendation of the government. So it has been recommended by the government—here and in the other place—without consulting opposition members, consulting crossbench members or, seemingly, having any serious conversations with anybody in this building about why these changes were occurring.

The government is trying to rush what is an incredibly significant reform, and that is a reform of the committee itself. As I said earlier in my comments, the PJCIS was not given much time at all to consider this change and complete its inquiry on the bill. Indeed, it was only given one month to undertake the inquiry and only opened for submissions for one week. No justification was given for this extremely short time frame. I find this approach very strange when on other matters there is significant delay from the government when things would otherwise be quite critical. They are happy to rush through changes without consultation when it suits them and on other matters they are dragging their heels, particularly in the areas of national security and foreign affairs, two incredibly important areas which this chamber would know I have very strong views on.

Indeed, I spoke in the Senate last night about the fact that the government hasn't yet got around to preparing a response to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee report on the human rights implications of violence in Iran which reported more than six months ago. That was an incredibly urgent inquiry and incredibly urgent report into an emergency situation—what was going on in Iran at the time and is still going on—not only for the human rights implications but for the impact on Australia's national security and the safety of Australians as a result of the appalling and dangerous behaviour of a foreign nation, the Islamic Republic regime and the IRGC. This committee has been waiting six months to get a response to that particular committee report, despite the fact that the committee acted with real urgency to complete its inquiry and make a series of recommendations to the government.

In contrast, here today we are debating a bill that the government want to rush through this parliament. They have rushed it through the committee process. They haven't appropriately consulted. This is a bill which contains element that appear to just be based on internal political machinations of the government. My colleagues Senator Paterson and Senator Cash made a significant effort to engage with the government to ensure that this bill could be brought to the chamber in a form in which it could pass with bipartisan agreement.

I refer back to my comments from earlier. It is incredibly important for our national prosperity and security that the PJCIS operates in a bipartisan fashion. As I said earlier, this is the first time in 17 years that opposition senators have felt the need to put in a dissenting report to a PJCIS inquiry. That's because they felt that their views and their positions had not been respected through the committee process. It is very disappointing that, instead of engaging, this bill has been brought on for debate in a form which the government knows doesn't have bipartisan support. The opposition senators on that committee would not have put in that dissenting report if it did have bipartisan support.

As has been outlined, the vast majority of elements of this bill can be supported on a bipartisan basis. As I said, there are some very sensible things in this bill which we as an opposition are certainly supportive of. There is no evidence which explains why this change to the composition of the PJCIS enhances Australia's national security. Frankly, I think the government needs to explain to the Senate where these changes came from. Does the government intend to appoint a crossbencher or a minor party member to the committee as a result of these changes, as the Gillard government did during the minority parliament? That would significantly and detrimentally change the character and culture of the committee, which has otherwise, as I've said, been a committee of the parties of government. There are very good reasons why this is the case. Adding a crossbencher or minor party members to the PJCIS risks undermining the bipartisan consensus on critical national security issues which has long been a feature of the PJCIS.

My understanding is that the Director-General of Security stated in his oral evidence to the PJCIS that the addition of two or more members of that committee will also increase the risk of classified material being leaked either intentionally or inadvertently. We in the opposition are certainly concerned that the proposed changes to the composition of the PJCIS may have this effect. That was concerning evidence to hear. But we are also concerned that these changes are only coming about because of the internal politics of this government.

After the May 2022 election, the government wasn't able to resolve its committee membership for this committee for almost three months, despite the PJCIS being widely recognised as the most important committee of the parliament. It couldn't be reconvened until 6 September 2022. That was three months after the election, and the committee's important work should, frankly, never be held hostage by any party's internal machinations. The government has tacked on these reforms to a bill, the contents of which are not time sensitive, so I think there is far further consideration to be done here.